Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 14, 2014

"Like every first-year undergraduate in philosophy, [Richard] Dawkins thinks he can put to rest the causal argument for God's existence. If God caused the world, then what caused God? Of course the great philosophers, Anselm and Aquinas particularly, are way ahead of him here. They know that the only way to stop the regression is by making God something that needs no cause. He must be a necessary being. This means that God is not part of the regular causal chain but in some sense orthogonal to it. He is what keeps the whole business going, past, present and future, and is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Also God is totally simple, and I don't see why complexity should not arise out of this, just as it does in mathematics and science from very simple premises." -- Michael Ruse, author of Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

moder8

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

"[I] see all knowledge, including claims about religious knowledge, as being relative to evolutionary ends. The upshot is that I don't dismiss religious beliefs even though they ultimately can be explained by evolution. I think everything can! I wouldn't dismiss religious beliefs even if you could show me that they are just a byproduct of adaptation, as I think Darwin himself thought. It is as plausible that my love of Mozart's operas is a byproduct of adaptation, but it doesn't make them any the less beautiful and meaningful. I think you have to judge religion on its merits." -- Ruse

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Another thought provoking entry in Guttings series of interviews on religion and theism in general.

The interviewee, Michael Ruse, scores a lot of points for his ability to question the underpinnings for arguments in favor of the existence of God without mocking or dismissing the important benefits that can accompany a faith in God.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-10 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

- without mocking or dismissing the important benefits that can accompany a faith in God.

He's a better man than most, not letting fear be his guide.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-10 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

All the debates, arguments, and theories are for people who either don't know or who 'believe'.

For example I don't 'believe' in God, I know with absolute certainty of His existence. At one time I simply 'believed' in Him but when He showed up and saved me 20 years ago, all doubt was erased.

The interesting thing is? I am unable to convince another by any means that this is true. Therefore, I have become convinced that absolute certainty of God's existence is something that God Himself must undertake with the individual.

#3 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-11 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

For evolution to "explain" religious beliefs, there must be some benefit that adds to the success of those that "believe". You can't just say they are evolutionary adaptations...why did they succeed.

IMO, its the rituals that religions passed on through its teachings, that allowed success of those that were religious, not so much the belief in god, but in order to be "saved" we must wash our hands, love thy neighbor, Laws of Kashrut, etc, etc....

These religious tenets enabled those that practice them succeed, or not get ill and die as easily.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-12 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 | Posted by DeadSpin
"For example I don't 'believe' in God, I know with absolute certainty of His existence."

The difference there is...?

#5 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-12 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"For evolution to "explain" religious beliefs, there must be some benefit that adds to the success of those that "believe".
#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-12 10:54 AM

That is not correct. Evolution does NOT always result in changes that allow the organism to "succeed".

#6 | Posted by deadseasquirrel at 2014-07-14 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

At one time I simply 'believed' in Him but when He showed up and saved me 20 years ago, all doubt was erased.

You saw Him (so It is Him?)

Perhaps you can settle a few more arguments. Is He black or white? What kind of ship does He drive? A galaxy 5000? Does He really have a long white flowing beard?

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ancient humans lived shorter lives with far more pain than most Americans feel from day-to-day. Without some form of religion, I don't think humans would have made it this far.

#8 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-14 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ancient humans lived shorter lives with far more pain than most Americans feel from day-to-day.

Wait...According to the bible they used to live a lot longer.

Another thing the bible is wrong about? Or we are not supposed to take this part literally either maybe. There should be a marker for sections we don't have to take literally so we don't get so confused.

After all, Eternity depends on it.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

He showed up and saved me 20 years ago, all doubt was erased.

The dinosaurs didn't "die out." They were all taken into heaven during the velocirapture.

###
not so much the belief in god, but in order to be "saved" we must wash our hands,

Explains the Black Death, the Plague and the Spanish Flu. Atheism was endemic (no pun intended) back then. And at the time of the Black Death, etc., cleanliness wasn't.

We are saved because we no longer consider these events to be the wrath of a god (9-11 and Katrina excepted, of course), but as manageable and understandable (by science) natural events.

#10 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-14 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

God is, even though the whole world deny him. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
"Watch out that you are not deceived." (Luke 21:8)

#11 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-07-14 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The difference there is...? #5 | POSTED BY THETOM

I "believe to be true" various opinions, positions, arguments on a variety of subjects but I "don't know with absolute certainty" that they are in fact true...they simply appear to be plausible, make sense, or are reasonable explanations.

However, in the case for the existence of God, I know with certainty that He exists. Sadly, I am unable to convince a skeptic by my mere testimony, as you can see here:

"Perhaps you can settle a few more arguments. Is He black or white? What kind of ship does He drive? A galaxy 5000? Does He really have a long white flowing beard?

#7 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY"

My hope is that God makes Himself known to DonnerBoy in such a manner that DonnerBoy becomes "convinced by absolute certainty".

#12 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-14 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Watch out that you are not deceived." (Luke 21:8)

#11 | Posted by lel2007

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
--Buddha

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

However, in the case for the existence of God, I know with certainty that He exists. Sadly, I am unable to convince a skeptic by my mere testimony, as you can see here:

It would help if you could describe Him.

You say he "showed up".

Did He actually "show up" or was there a combination of events that you cannot explain that you now attribute to a God intervening on your behalf?

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"but as manageable and understandable (by science) natural events.

#10 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3"

Science is nothing more than an observation and reporting platform. The identity of a causal agent of a causal agent of a causal agent of a....etc. is a chicken/egg first riddle. Science just can't explain entirely....so it posits it best explanation with theories until new info comes along.

As long as people are fed "manageable and understandable" explanations of "natural events" they can be temporarily appeased so as not to tailspin into the panic of facing their Creator.

Funny thing is? The masses "believe" the scientists. They don't "know with certainty" because they didn't conduct and control the experiments themselves. The masses "believe" and "trust in" the reports they're being fed, and therefore "have faith in" science.

haha

#15 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-14 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did He actually "show up" or was there a combination of events that you cannot explain that you now attribute to a God intervening on your behalf?

#14 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Yeah he showed up. in person. it would be useless to describe my experience or my ongoing relationship with Him over the last 20 years because we both know that leads nowhere. My greatest hope is that when you reach some next great crisis or calamity that you are met in your despair by a blinding white light, an unmistakable voice, and an overpowering and all encompassing presence that overwhelms you to submission before your God.

#16 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-14 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Man knew nothing and feared everything so he created a god that was responsible for everything. As long as man kept his imaginary god happy he felt he was magically protected.

As man evolved he learned a lot about his environment. Why things happen as they do. And man realized there was no magic that held everything together. Everything was independent and responsible for itself. And man started being responsible for his own actions.

But a lot of men remain ignorant.

And so they still need there to be a god for them to rely apon.

And a lot of men remain power hungry.

And they use god to enslave others.

#17 | Posted by Clownshack at 2014-07-14 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Okay, I'll bite. Would you please describe your experience? I promise I won't judge, I'm just curious about your experience.

#18 | Posted by DoofusOfDeath at 2014-07-14 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Okay, I'll bite. Would you please describe your experience? I promise I won't judge, I'm just curious about your experience.

#18 | POSTED BY DOOFUSOFDEATH

It's irrelevant. If I told you I was a sheepherder that just spent 3 years with a man performing miracles and claimed to be the Son of God....would you believe me?

of course not. Heck, you wouldn't believe 12 sheepherders either. Neither will what happened to me make a difference. My hope is that everyone experiences God first hand.

I can tell you this, while every individual experience is somewhat different, I've talked to dozens of people over the years who had a similar event and they are ALL devoted followers of Christ.

ALL doubt is erased...all doubt.

#19 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-14 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

No offense intended, but I'd like to remind you of 1 Peter 3:15.

#20 | Posted by DoofusOfDeath at 2014-07-14 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

My greatest hope is that when you reach some next great crisis or calamity that you are met in your despair by a blinding white light, an unmistakable voice, and an overpowering and all encompassing presence that overwhelms you to submission before your God.

#16 | Posted by DeadSpin

I have had many crises in my life. I have prayed to higher powers to save me. But, I could have prayed to God Allah Buddha or the Spaghetti Monster and the results would have been the same. As long as I "believed" properly. Belief is a powerful thing. Even if there is no one at the other end of the line.

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.
--Buddha

Be advised. I will not submit to aliens. Even if they are overpowering and they overwhelm me. I will respect the fact that they are more powerful than me. And I will endeavor to persevere and then to understand their technology and use it for the benefit of all mankind.

Semper Fi

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Donnerboy, your sarcasm and contempt for religion is misplaced in a thread such as this where a profound thinker (who does not personally believe in God) is able to see the value that comes from personal faith.

#22 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-14 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm very interested to hear more detail offline. Let me know if you're game.

#23 | Posted by DoofusOfDeath at 2014-07-14 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

is able to see the value that comes from personal faith.

I guess you missed the part where I spoke of my own respect for the power of belief.

He said a God "showed up" and saved him.

I asked for details and got none.

Many men have claimed divine intervention (including myself). But, when the details are examined it turns out to be not so divine at all.

The Religulous have NO problem being "contemptuous" of the non-believers as they have for thousands of years.

So perhaps you should be more forgiving when we blow off a little pent up steam now that we are finally free to do so without getting our heads lopped off.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Religulous have NO problem being "contemptuous" of the non-believers as they have for thousands of years. "

Look on the bright side. At least they can no longer burn non-theists at the stake.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-14 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

" a thread such as this where a profound thinker "

Never heard of this guy before. He can't be that profound.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-14 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Nulli, you think you are aware of all profound thinkers? lol. Most profound thinkers have never published a book or been on TV. This guy is extremely well known within his professional field. The fact that you haven't heard of him simply tells me that you restrict your reading to those people the mainstream media tells you are 'profound'.

#27 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-14 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This guy is extremely well known within his professional field."

Groovy.

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-14 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"you restrict your reading to those people the mainstream media tells you are 'profound'."

I don't spend time reading the back and forth between militant theists and militant non-theists. I'd rather read Siddhartha.

#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-14 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look on the bright side. At least they can no longer burn non-theists at the stake.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian

so true.

Also, he mistakes my "devastating wit" for sarcasm.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since evolution does not exist I don't waste my time on what an evolutionist has to say. Especially Richard Dawkins.

#31 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-07-14 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americas religion is economics. It will not die as long as people continue to accept control systems.

#32 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-14 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since evolution does not exist I don't waste my time on what an evolutionist has to say. Especially Richard Dawkins.

#31 | Posted by mcmlcxx

Sir. Your contemptuous remarks regarding my belief system does not belong on this learned thread!

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-14 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Funny thing is? The masses "believe" the scientists.

People who have conducted public experiments that were repeated by others and many of whose conclusions are easily identifiable versus an anonymously written, easily discredited, littered with plagarism and edits, book?

Mormons believe Joseph Smith, Scientologists Elron Hubbard. Do you deny their versions of Christian religious reality?

#34 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-14 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Science just can't explain entirely....so it posits it best explanation with theories until new info comes along.

Science then tests that explanation and, in the case of things like medicine comes up with possible cures. Religion just blames the victim for not being religious enough.

Religion never attempts to explain at all. It just is. Just because. And when one of its tenets becomes obviously stupid, it just ignores.

#35 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-14 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution can not explain Evolution because they have failed to explain where the info in the DNA came from. Natural selection only works if DNA exist first. It didn't create DNA.

#36 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-15 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution can not explain Evolution because they have failed to explain where the info in the DNA came from. Natural selection only works if DNA exist first. It didn't create DNA.

#36 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-15 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

What you're saying is that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

100% True. Although this is not what evolution is trying to explain.

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-15 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whats always amazed me is that the religious run as if they were on fire to the alter to give "god" the gredit for all the great things that happen So go ends up ad an allstar player every time in their minds. But, where are they when the terrible atrocities happen? does god get credit for those too? They then turn to god to help them and the world through terrible things. As if an all powerful infinite being couldnt have prevented it in the first place?

#38 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2014-07-15 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

The bible teaches us to believe that
god hates sin (but created it)
god punishes us for sin
god committed geonicide on the entire planet (except for one boat load)because of sin
god then inpregnated a virgin with himself to save us from sin
God killed himself for our sins on a cross
sin is still rampat.

in my opinion god's not really effective or he's nonexistant

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2014-07-15 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mormons have created a strong segregated socialist community. They are committed to volunteer work in supporting each other in a myriad of ways. Yet they would hate to be characterized as socialist and vote in mass for the Republican Party. The evolutionary advantage they enjoy is the largest tax scam in the nation. Their net worth is a secret, but its all tax free. Gentiles that live in Utah subsidize their community.

#40 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-15 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Everything in America today often seems to be about hostility and polarization. Racial. Political. Religious. The level acrimony is constantly set on 'high' whenever a social issue is discussed. Leftwinger and rightwingers have always disagreed. Racists and integrationalists have always disagreed. Theists and non-theists have always disagreed. It just seems that now, in the age of the internet and unlimited opinionating, that the hostility level between differing views is constantly as virulent as can be. Which is why I find this philosopher's take on religious issues refreshing.

#41 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-15 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"that the hostility level between differing views is constantly as virulent as can be."

IMO, that is your view because you spend a considerable time on the internet where it's far more likely to be "virulent".

not being judgmental....just making an observation.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-15 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3
Science then tests that explanation and, in the case of things like medicine comes up with possible cures. Religion just blames the victim for not being religious enough.
Religion never attempts to explain at all. It just is. Just because. And when one of its tenets becomes obviously stupid, it just ignores.

Have you verified and confirmed every scientific experiment ever conducted? Then you 'trust' papers written by people you don't know. you have 'faith in' others who confirmed and verified for you, whom you do not know nor have you scrutinized their qualifications and findings, and you 'believe' that what they are saying is true, because a consensus of people whom you don't know all agree in a chorus of words sweet to your ear?

that's a religion. the religion of science is no different than the religion of bhudda, allah, FSM, or Jefferson Airplane Mothership.

I don't ascribe to any religion. I belong to Jesus Christ. was born again. saved. My Creator gave me His Holy Spirit. I was a dead walking zombie just like all the others and out of nowhere God showed up and made Himself known.

It wasn't anything I did. I wasn't even looking for God. As it turns out He was looking for me.

Just like He's looking for you. God speaks to every single person. most refuse to hear Him. They ignore the voice that they KNOW is His and instead choose to go their own way and follow their own brilliant plans into misery and death.

Evolution is mankind's invention of imagination to kill all thought of your Father....so that you have an excuse to continue ignoring His voice.

#43 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-15 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Have you verified and confirmed every scientific experiment ever conducted? Then you 'trust' papers written by people you don't know. you have 'faith in' others who confirmed and verified for you, whom you do not know nor have you scrutinized their qualifications and findings, and you 'believe' that what they are saying is true, because a consensus of people whom you don't know all agree in a chorus of words sweet to your ear?
#43 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN AT 2014-07-15 03:21 PM | FLAG: FF

That's a BIG TIME FUNNY FLAG!

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-15 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Please read the following and stop conflating faith in science and faith in religion:

www.slate.com

#45 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-15 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45 I respect your belief in the sacred text of slate.com

Haha

#46 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-15 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you verified and confirmed every scientific experiment ever conducted? Then you 'trust' papers written by people you don't know. you have 'faith in' others who confirmed and verified for you, whom you do not know nor have you scrutinized their qualifications and findings, and you 'believe' that what they are saying is true, because a consensus of people whom you don't know all agree in a chorus of words sweet to your ear?
#43 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN AT 2014-07-15 03:21 PM | FLAG: FF

(1) If you knew anything about science you would know that simply building a working laser (my area of expertise) validates many scientific principles in one experiment. So one does not need to read and verify previous scientific work, science done right, builds on itself (an iterative evolution?)

(2) Many scientists and engineers still believe in God, I do (that is the reason I started studying physics), and frankly my scientific studies have actually strengthened my belief.

(3) I am glad you found Christ, but maybe you should listen to him. He did not badger people and he wasn't confrontational. The best way to proselytize is by being a living example of the glory that you see, otherwise you are just a blowhard are aren't helping to convert anyone.

#47 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-15 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you verified and confirmed every scientific experiment ever conducted?

I have seen enough cause and effect or predictable outcomes to trust the basis of science.

Have you confirmed ANY religious belief? If so, explain why the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. How did kangaroos swim to the Middle East to board the ark? Turned a fish and a bagel into lunch for 300? Turned a woman into a block of salt? Turned water into wine? Made Mount Ararat taller than the Himalayas?

Face it, you blindly take a bunch of fables, most stolen from even older religions, and accept them as, pardon the pun, the Gospel Truth. And then take some mental abberation and turn it into a personal date with one of the fables.

#48 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-15 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Face it, you blindly take a bunch of fables, most stolen from even older religions, and accept them as, pardon the pun, the Gospel Truth. And then take some mental abberation and turn it into a personal date with one of the fables.

#48 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

I get what you're saying, but it tells me you don't understand.

I didn't read the bible, accept it as truth, and mentally ascend to "belief" by reasoning within myself. Nor did I ascribe to some collective belief system in a church or religious group to form an opinion that seemed like a logical explanation. Heck...I don't even go to church.

I was out drinking, drugging, chasing tail and money with the rest of the world when I was confronted by God, was saved and born again out of nowhere. The closest thing I can relate to (if your familiar) is Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

Anyway, I am only saying this in order to relate to the subject of this thread, to which I originally responded, "All the debates, arguments, and theories are for people who either don't know or who 'believe'."

Once again, my response to the subject is that Religion and Evolution are both products of man's imagination. Religion is mans attempt to explain God while Evolution is man's attempt to explain God away.

I am not religious, I am born again. I do not believe, I know with absolute certainty.

#49 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution is man's attempt to explain God away.

Evolution has nothing to do with that. You're barking up the wrong tree.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-16 05:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Haha
#46 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

That's okay. I laugh at the confidence you display in "knowing the truth," Mr. Born Again. Despite that, I am able to understand and relate to the moral message your bible conveys. It's too bad you're unable to even consider the message contained in a Slate article when it has SO much to offer someone who is as confused as you.

Sad, really, considering you're advocating for "knowledge of the truth."

HAHA (indeed)!

#51 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The closest thing I can relate to (if your familiar) is Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

You're comparing yourself to a Saint?

HAHA!

Delusions of grandeur: thy name is DEADSPIN.

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Evolution is man's attempt to explain God away.

Did you ever pass a high school Biology class? If so, you would know this is completely false. To which I believe you do know it to be false, yet offer it because it sounds good in your line of reasoning.

Fess up! Evolution is man's attempt to explain the development of life and Earth's environment. You're slowly sliding off the deep end, DEADSPIN. Being a born again doesn't mean you get to be a contemptuous -----!

#53 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy, Evolutionists would love nothing more than to convince you to believe that life slithered up and out of some primordial soup so that they can drive a stake into God's existence.

The religious world would like you to believe you can worship any god made of clay, tin, or wood and that'll be good enough.

Evolution and Religion are intended to keep people away from God. The 3rd leg of the stool is Self (atheism/agnostic ) or "I am my own self-determining god". To choose any of the three legs is a win-win for the enemy who doesn't care which leg you choose as long as it's not God.

The 3 legs hate Christ and His sheep.

#54 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rsty, there is nothing "contemptuous" about Deadspin's posts. You are the one being angry, loud and insulting. He believes in God and looks at science and the world in general through that prism. I share your disagreement with him, but I don't understand your angry disdain.

#55 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-16 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#55 | POSTED BY MODER8

Anyone who willy-nilly compares themselves to a Saint while simultaneously disparaging the entirety of biological and earthly sciences is acting contemptuously and within delusions of grandeur. You disagree with my sentiment, so be it.

I nonetheless stand by it.

#56 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

MOEDER8 -

"Snoofy, Evolutionists would love nothing more than to convince you to believe that life slithered up and out of some primordial soup so that they can drive a stake into God's existence."
#54 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

See what I mean. As a scientist who continues a search of spiritual significance, I consider the above insulting. DEADSPIN has been consistent in his disparagement.

#57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Rusty....science is nothing more than the observation and recording of everything that God has created. However, many within science have used their observations as a tool in an attempt to explain source-cause away from God. Science has become a "faith in mans intellect" to exclude a Creator.

If man wanted truth he would turn to the One who holds all truth. But what man wants instead is an explanation, so he turns to mans limited intellect, knowledge, and reasoning.

#58 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Snoofy, Evolutionists would love nothing more than to convince you to believe that life slithered up and out of some primordial soup so that they can drive a stake into God's existence.

Come now. That's not why Darwin got on the Beagle.
You're the one trying to to the convincing right now, and you're doing a lousy job.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-16 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not in acting in contempt here...if you could only hear the tone of my voice you would hear empathy and understanding of your position....I once believed as you guys. Moder8 is right....I see things through a different prism.

Rusty...your using the term saint from a religious position. Gods people are not distinguished by status levels. Paul, Moses, Daniel are my heros from scripture, but in Gods eyes they are on level ground with me and you. God speaks to His people. He speaks to me just as he always has to those He spoke to in the Bible.

#60 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Snoofy, where exactly in the theory of origin of species is God given credit for His creation?

#61 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If man wanted truth he would turn to the One who holds all truth. "

The Buddha?

#62 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-16 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I once saw a giant Buddah carved out of yak butter in western China....I can still remember the smell. Like rancid milk

#63 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

However, many within science have used their observations as a tool in an attempt to explain source-cause away from God.

That's not what you said. Now you'r moving the goal posts. Some also used science as a justification for eugenics. Just ask Hitler, as the Nazis borrowed most of their eugenics program from scientists in California. There is no good vs. evil in science. If anything, the one aspect that truly has been invented by man is the notion of good vs. evil. In science (the observation, recording, and experimentation of Earth, its characters, and its processes) there is no good vs. evil. There's just nature. This was the beginning of man's attempt to separate itself from nature and the savagery of the Earth. That's why there's the hope of an Eden, a paradise separate from the animalistic, Earthly existence. That's why it is humans who are allowed into the afterlife - no consideration for animals. No consideration for the FACT that humans ARE animals.

Science has become a "faith in mans intellect" to exclude a Creator.

You should really challenge yourself and read that Slate article above. Nobody is saying you have to believe it as Gospel (see what I did there?). Just consider the message and the possibility that you are conflating faith within religion and faith within science. They are not the same thing.

If man wanted truth he would turn to the One who holds all truth.

Which One is that? From the sounds of it, you have your own set system of beliefs - unique to any others. Yet, you refuse to explicitly state what it takes to "turn to the One who holds all truth." I'm willing to listen if you're willing to consider the challenge to the statements you have made. You can do so very easily by ignoring whatever slant you consider Slate provides and by reading the Slate article previously offered.

#64 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

He speaks to me just as he always has to those He spoke to in the Bible.
#60 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Like being visited by the Arch Angel Michael? Or speaking to a burning bush? Or hearing a voice come down from the clouds in the sky? Or just a voice in the back of your head?

All are examples of ways God spoke to individuals in the Bible. You are purposely not being specific. Why is that? In hopes that you will not have to explicitly describe the processes in fear of them being tested?

There lies the first lesson in understanding the difference between faith in religion (spirituality) and faith in science. Science fears nothing. Science seeks failure in hopes of improvement. Religion, spirituality do nothing of the sort. Faith in religion lies within the premise of God of the gaps - should science be unable to explain a phenomena, its explanation must be relegated to "God's will." And science is then subsequently disparaged for its current inability to offer a legitimate explanation.

If you view the world in the "prism" the science is used for nefarious purposes that takes people away from God, I believe your prism is faulty and baseless. As mentioned above by another poster who is a scientist, many scientists find that science brings them closer to god. Yet you refuse to consider this (or the differences between scientific faith and religious faith) and claim to know the ultimate truth?

A prism chalk full of delusions of grandeur FOR SURE!

#65 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I did read it. It's written by someone who is unable to see through the same prism I have . They are attempting to explain what I see and why I see it this way, as though I'm not seeing things clearly.

As an illustration, suppose I have a radio in the year 1600. You've never seen one, can't imagine it at all, and the problem is I can't show it to you...I can only tell you I have one, it works, and I use it for everything. I understand you don't believe me...I get that and I'm ok with that. I understand it sounds crazy...I get it. What I am saying is that everyone can have one direct from the manufacturer. That is if you believe in the manufacturer and ask for one.

Haha

#66 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's written by someone who is unable to see through the same prism I have . They are attempting to explain what I see and why I see it this way, as though I'm not seeing things clearly.

How can you say that when the author has absolutely NO clue who you are or what you believe? The author is distinguishing faith in religion from faith in science. Are you unable to acknowledge the difference he provided? Or simply unwilling to accept them. There's a huge difference between these two reasonings.

What I am saying is that everyone can have one direct from the manufacturer. That is if you believe in the manufacturer and ask for one.
Haha

#66 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Ever heard of buyer beware? Or that the manufacturer that can actually produce will get the sale? My point is that the faith related to science has produced far more tangible and useful advances for the human civilization in a far shorter time period than religion, spirituality, or the Bible. Those advances have come about not in spite of, but because of the faith in scientific progress - as faith in previous work is required to progress and build upon it. Faith in religion, however, works in the opposite direction. It demands mitigation to progress as progress includes change. Religious doctrine is deathly afraid of change since religious doctrine is meant to be set in stone (see what I did there? Nice little pun reference to the ten commandments! HAHA!) because it was ordained by God. Hence, it SHOULD NOT CHANGE! For if it does, it goes against God's will, making said actions blasphemous and punishable by an eternity in Hell.

Maybe you should reread the article. I don't think you grasped the author's premise. At least your response indicates as much.

#67 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't claim to know ultimate truth....I know Him who holds all truth. That's not some special privilege of reward because I'm some great somebody....I'm nothing...He is all in all. Knowing Him and hearing His voice instruct and guide me is available to you and every other person.

Science as a whole and scientists in General have not published any findings where God is given credit for creating something from nothing. In fact most scientists are attempting to fill the gaps with more imagined mechanics, events, and happenings in an attempt to explain away any notion of an intelligent agent at the helm.

God has and does use science in some cases to 'turn on the light' in the heart of some scientists. This is more rare than the norm.

#68 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I don't claim to know ultimate truth....

Pardon my misinterpretation of the following:

I am not religious, I am born again. I do not believe, I know with absolute certainty.
#49 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

So what is it exactly that you know with absolute certainty? That wouldn't happen to be the truth, would it? Or you're saying you know Him "with absolute certainty"? By the way, are you all that certain the he is a Him?

I'm nothing...He is all in all. Knowing Him and hearing His voice instruct and guide me is available to you and every other person.

You are sounding more and more like an evangelist. Is this your interest in the conversation? If so, I can save you a lot of time. You're a born again Christian? I'm a recovering Catholic. Different prisms, maybe - but that has nothing to do with the difference between scientific faith and religious faith.

Please acknowledge this difference, if you're capable of doing so.

In fact most scientists are attempting to fill the gaps with more imagined mechanics, events, and happenings in an attempt to explain away any notion of an intelligent agent at the helm.

How do you know anything about the intentions of most scientists so factually? More so, it's incredibly ironic that you offer a Gaps theory to bolster your baseless assumption regarding the scientists intentions. If you believe science to be nothing more than man's ability to observe and record, then you've contradicted yourself. If science does nothing more than observe, science is no imagining anything, now is it? It's simply observing what's taking place. So even within your own prism you're unable to maintain reasonable consistency.

Maybe you should sit down and think this one through a little bit more. Maybe you're much more like me than you would like to admit: still searching for that reasonable belief in something greater than myself.

#69 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with you! Science has advanced mankind by leaps and bounds...so has my field of expertise...voice and data communications. If the end goal is advancement of mankind? Sci and tech win.....IF ....IF....the end goal is man kinds intellectual advancement. What if that's NOT the creators goal? If Gods goal is to bring man closer to Him and advance His Kingdom, mans goals of advancing his own intellect and achievements may lie in direct opposition to Gods plans.

I is the advancement of science causing the academics to say, "science is proving God!!!"??

Is advancing tech causing people to exclaim "now I can finally communicate with God"??

Religion says you can communicate with God....through them. They'll explain everything to you because you can't possibly understand it yourself and they're special with special access that you can't have. So, follow their rules, pay them, and they'll dribble some crumbs for you.

#70 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know with absolute certainty that God is who He said He is, has given us His Word, His Son, and His Sprit, and speaks to His sheep. I am one of His sheep who blindly follow His voice, instruction, and direction. I am just an ignorant sheep Rusty. I claim to know nothing more than what I've stated. What I've stated has been told to me by my Father.

I don't know what the core of the sun is made of, or the earth, or what happened to the dinosaurs. Neither do you. Neither does science. But science wants you to believe they know the chemical compounds and how they react in the center of the sun.

I assure you they are guessing.

#71 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

No I'm not evangelizing ...I'm convinced that one cannot win a debate unto conversion. I'm convinced salvation is instigated, purposed, and carried out by God Himself with every individual.

I'm debating the thread title and article. It, like the slate article are written from the perspective of a person unacquainted with God attempting to explain why and how a born again sheep views evolution.

As a born again sheep, I am disputing the findings.

#72 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#70 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

What if that's NOT the creators goal? If Gods goal is to bring man closer to Him and advance His Kingdom, mans goals of advancing his own intellect and achievements may lie in direct opposition to Gods plans.

Firstly, are you another pontificator claiming to know what God wants?

Secondly, do you believe we are all able to communicate with God and subsequently understand his goals? Really? Are you unable to recognize that humans have been murdering each other for centuries over the exact argument regarding the "truth of God's plan"? It seems to me, via your prism, that God has been telling some groups of people that his goal is one thing and other sets of people that his goal is something completely different. Your utopian prism does not withstand the evidence provided throughout history or the current religious environment in the ME, let alone the rest of the world. Especially when you claim that you do not adhere to any specific religion or doctrine (save for the Bible, apparently?).

I is the advancement of science causing the academics to say, "science is proving God!!!"??

For some, yes! In fact it is doing exactly that for many! Albert Einstein believed this to be true. It was HIS life goal.

Is advancing tech causing people to exclaim "now I can finally communicate with God"??

I don't know a single religious adherent who has declared the necessity of technology to communicate with God. But that's simply anecdotal, so I don't have an objective answer for your question. Too bad you're unable to humbly declare similar sentiments (claiming that you factually know the intentions of most scientists is based on what exactly?).

So, follow their rules, pay them, and they'll dribble some crumbs for you.

It was religion that produced the Bible, which again, seems to be the only thing you adhere to (please correct me if I'm wrong). Without religion, you would not have the framework of understanding regarding your own beliefs. God may have inspired the scripture, but he did not write it. Religions wrote it, translated it, retranslated it, and eventually censored it to become the Bible that which you refer to.

Only CORKY can legitimately claim to know the true Bible, as he has convinced me that he's done the necessary homework. Picking up a Gideon's bible and crying out "I'm born again!" while simultaneously disavowing Protestantism is completely contradictory. So either a little more explicitness regarding your beliefs or a reconsideration of your definitions regarding faith very well may be in order.

#73 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does evolution explain religious beliefs?

No. Religion is a control issue intended to keep potential sheep separated from God by convincing them that they need to follow a list of rules, religious activities, and attendance requirements over a lifetime to earn entrance into the kingdom while communicating through a human mediator.

Evolution is an intellectual argument intended to keep potential sheep separated from God by explaining that nothing was created but rather has a reasonable explanation that excludes God.

Atheism is a self determination of will that exclaims " I am my own god"

These are the 3 legs of the stool that will be pulled out from under mankind.

#74 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73

Puh-leeeze! Do not use my name in vain, lol.

I actually appreciate those who can know for themselves (and not for everyone else) of spiritual matters. They are not as hard-headed and hard to convince thru research as I was.

I don't however, appreciate arrogant intolerant fundies of any ilk.

Or those like Nulli who say that, "all theists are fundies".

Just because they have nothing to say at all really.

#75 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"[I] see all knowledge, including claims about religious knowledge, as being relative to evolutionary ends. The upshot is that I don't dismiss religious beliefs even though they ultimately can be explained by evolution. I think everything can!

I wouldn't dismiss religious beliefs even if you could show me that they are just a byproduct of adaptation, as I think Darwin himself thought. It is as plausible that my love of Mozart's operas is a byproduct of adaptation, but it doesn't make them any the less beautiful and meaningful. I think you have to judge religion on its merits." -- Ruse"

from the article

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I've stated has been told to me by my Father.

Now we are getting somewhere. So your belief is not based on the written scripture, yet solely based upon what you have been told by God. Excuse me while I take your experience as a singular one, that which is not experienced by humanity as a whole. Are you suggesting you know more than the rest of us? If so, why are you NOT evangelizing (as mentioned in your #72)?

The problem I have with your description of beliefs is that it is so simplified. It's one that has been propagated by the likes of Joseph Smith and Martin Luther. It's one that starts out seemingly simple and develops into something larger - its own religion. Your thought process is not as unique as you claim it to be. If communicating with God was as easy as you claim, I'd be capable of doing it right now. (Pause - check for communicative response from God.) Nope. Nothing. And yet, I'm afraid your explanation for may lack of results lies within my lack of faith. And to that we have finally come full circle regarding the definitions of faith.

Can we finally address that matter?

No I'm not evangelizing ...

So be it. But please recognize that the language you were utilizing was EXACTLY that of an evangelist.

It, like the slate article are written from the perspective of a person unacquainted with God attempting to explain why and how a born again sheep views evolution.

I question whether you read either considering the following opens the linked article:

Gary Gutting: What do you think of the claim that scientific accounts provide all the explanations needed to understand the existence and nature of the world, so that there's no need to posit God as the ultimate explanation?

I don't think science can explain everything. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!

Michael Ruse: Let me start at a more general level by saying that I don't think science as such can explain everything. Therefore, assuming that the existence and nature of the world can be fully understood (I'm not sure it can!), this is going to require something more than science. As far as I am concerned, if you want God to have a crack at the job, go right ahead!


Your prism and interpretations of the articles (if read) are based on nothing but assumptions. You assume the authors do not (or have not) had a relationship with God. Why is that?

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I assure you they are guessing.
#71 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

There's a difference between making a baseless guess and making an educated guess. You are aware of this, right? Even within your simplified prism, you can recognize this basic, yet very important and significant difference, correct? Again, your definitions of faith seem to be conflated.

#78 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Or those like Nulli who say that, "all theists are fundies"."

All Abrahamic theists believe in the most preposterous assertion of them all: that there is a supernatural Superman in the sky who knows your thoughts. Nothing more fundamentalist than that.

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-16 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

-fundamentalist

"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles "

Obviously that word does not mean what you think it means.

And coming from someone who has admired Gaea on these pages.... it's hilarious!

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. Religion is a control issue intended to keep potential sheep separated from God by convincing them that they need to follow a list of rules, religious activities, and attendance requirements over a lifetime to earn entrance into the kingdom while communicating through a human mediator.

I truly implore you to read the research of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, the founders of sociology and distinguished investigators of human's development of religion and beliefs. It's not only fascinating, I believe it will broaden your current (?) enlightenment.

Atheism is a self determination of will that exclaims " I am my own god"

I understand that the interviewee wrote a book on Atheism, but I'm no apologist for atheists. Like CORKY, I disavow any form of fundamentalism. As an agnostic, I am fully comfortable in declaring "I simply just don't know." You do not seem comfortable in doing the same. So be it. But please realize that those who are comfortable within the realms of agnosticism are not all hedonistic, nihilistic, or EVIL drug users lost in Sodom and Gomorrah.

#81 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

God authored His Word, men chosen by God held a quill in their hand and pressed it to papyrus, God assembled these writings by His power and will using men He chose to accurately produce and eventually translate His Word for mankind. Religion had nothing to do with it. Despite attempts to destroy these works over centuries, the only defense against them is to attempt to discredit these writings or the people who profess them to be truth.

My "beliefs" are that there is a true church not found meeting in buildings or collecting money that is made up of born again followers of Christ that are located all over the world. These sheep are servants of the living God and look to Him regarding every matter, large or small. I am completely dependent upon Him for everything and everything is supplied by Him.

I most closely resemble a mainstream Baptist, Protestant, or evangelical in theology although I have a few issues doctrinally. However, I'm convinced these organizations have become way too overly active in politics, money, social policing, entertainment venues, religious clubs, family activity centers, commercial building contractors, etc and I just am not interested in advancing those agendas.

#82 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"And coming from someone who has admired Gaea "

The horror!

#83 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-16 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

These are the 3 legs of the stool that will be pulled out from under mankind.
#74 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

And you are aware that atheism is NOT popular here in the U.S., right? Let alone the rest of the world, atheism is almost taboo. So much so, I read a poll that showed Americans are far more willing to vote for a POTUS who was Muslim, or homosexual, or a woman than they would an atheist. If I remember correctly, a Muslim could garner more than 50%, same for homosexual, and same for a woman. But an atheist would hardly garner 10% of the voting block. Just goes to show how the American majority view the "religiousless."

In other words, you have nothing to fear within the near future.

#84 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

-The horror!

"...the most preposterous assertion of them all: that there is a supernatural..."

But Gaea is OK, don't 'cha know.

The humor!

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no problem admitting I don't know....in fact, as an ignorant sheep, what I "know" can fit on the head of a pin as compared to what I don't know, which is infinite.

What I do know with absolute certainty, is that God sent His Son to pay the penalty for my sins and yours, and that He has given me eternal life, saved me from damnation, and given me His Spirit.....all this happened over 20 years ago in one instant, when I wasn't looking for it or expecting it. By Gods grace and mercy, I was made a sheep.

That's all I know

#86 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Knowing Him and hearing His voice instruct and guide me is available to you and every other person.,

If you are hearing voices in your and obeying them without question you probably need to seek professional help. You said yourself you were doing drugs and drinking and then you saw God. Gee... what a coincidence. I did that too once or twice! Hate to break it to you but that is not all that unusual or even special. You wanna see God? Drop some acid or better yet...peyote. Guaranteed to open them doors of perception. No guarantee of the results of what you learn about yourself though.

There is no one in there but you and your brains. BTW- you have two of them so maybe you are hearing the conversation between them and mistaking that for something external.

See the Bicameral Brain.
en.wikipedia.org

Ever wonder why Gods were generally much more numerous and much more anthropomorphic than in modern times?

According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: one would not be at all conscious of one's own thought processes per se. Research into "command hallucinations" that often direct the behavior of those labeled schizophrenic, as well as other voice hearers, supports Jaynes's predictions.[1]

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

""...the most preposterous assertion of them all: that there is a supernatural...""

Well said.

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-16 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#82 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Just out of curiosity, which Bible do you own? You know, which version do you subscribe to?

Religion had nothing to do with it.

HAHAHA! Okay. Judaism had NOTHING to do with the Bible. *eye roll*

Are we ever going to address the separate definitions of scientific faith and religious faith? Or are we just going to run in circles for the rest of the evening?

#89 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Agnostics are uncommitted atheists....haha

#90 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no problem admitting I don't know.....

Stop contradicting yourself!

"For example I don't 'believe' in God, I know with absolute certainty of His existence."
#3 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN AT 2014-07-11 05:04 PM

I'm beginning to wonder if this discussion has been a complete waste of time. Only trolls and the confused make such blatant contradictions within a debate.

#91 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Agnostics are uncommitted atheists....haha
#90 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Contemptuous indeed.

#92 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, and NIV...i use them all but mostly my NASB. Sometimes I like the KJV for the poetic wording

#93 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

DEADSPIN -

You know the most famous Born Again that I know of who claimed to communicate directly with God?

George Walker Bush. Yup, he claimed that God told him specifically that he was to invade Iraq - and that it would be good.

Aren't we SOOOOOOO glad GW listened to God regarding Iraq? Such a GREAT IDEA! Right?!

#94 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jaynes 30 year old theories are interesting if not convincing.

For people who don't know about them, there is criticism enough to fill many threads.

genealogyreligion.net

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Please address your obvious contradictions or be relegated as nothing more than a troll. I am interested in this conversation ONLY if you are sincere.

I'm beginning to believe you are not.

#96 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

See #86 ...I've communicated clearly. There are things I know with absolute certainty. The majority of "all knowledge" I merely have a position on...no different than you. The one subject we disagree on is the knowledge with absolute certainty that the God of the Bible is in fact the Creator, Father, and Lord.

I know for certain, you are uncommitted. That's nothing to be angry or frustrated over.

#97 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Well said.

Greek myths good! Hebrew myths bad!

("myths" in the Joseph Campbell sense of, "a lie that hides a deeper truth.")

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

.I've communicated clearly.

No you haven't.

The one subject we disagree on is the knowledge with absolute certainty that the God of the Bible is in fact the Creator, Father, and Lord.
#97 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

That's exactly what I was referring to, as do ALL agnostics, when suggesting "I just don't know." That is a reference to the existence of god, "creation," the afterlife, etc. Why you suggest that "I have no problem admitting that I don't know" in this context does not make any sense. Your confusion is confounding.

#99 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's nothing to be angry or frustrated over.
#97 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Projection is the death of all debate. Nicely done! Ignore all other points I made and claim that I harbor anger and frustration, to which I've CLEARLY stated to the contrary:

As an agnostic, I am fully comfortable in declaring "I simply just don't know."
#81 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2014-07-16 04:51 PM

Be a little bit more considerate of the points made during the discussion and maybe you won't discern the posters you're communicating with in the future as angry or frustrated.

#100 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now I'm not sure what you're asking.

i stated earlier:

I know with absolute certainty that God is who He said He is, has given us His Word, His Son, and His Spirit, and speaks to His sheep. I am one of His sheep who blindly follow His voice, instruction, and direction. I am just an ignorant sheep Rusty. I claim to know nothing more than what I've stated. What I've stated has been told to me by my Father.
I don't know what the core of the sun is made of, or the earth, or what happened to the dinosaurs. Neither do you. Neither does science. But science wants you to believe they know the chemical compounds and how they react in the center of the sun.

#71 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

I am certain, therefore I don't "believe", suppose, assume, wonder about, or waffle on the the existence of God. Jesus is not "an opinion" I hold, nor is the Bible a book that "is probably inspired by God".

"I know" is different than "I believe". Belief is a hope of faith, or a faith of hope that something is true whereas "I KNOW it's true" is an absolute certainty that cannot be persuaded from.

Is that what you're trying to differentiate?

#101 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

ok...restate the points you want addressed. I've missed or read over them as comments as opposed to questions.

I'll admit...sometimes a forum is difficult to converse when a variety of people are commenting all at once, then add in the delay of tying a response.

#102 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is that what you're trying to differentiate?
#101 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Honestly, no. I'm attempting to differentiate between the faith of science and the faith of religion/spirituality.

You have refused to address this point outside of "the point was made by an author who doesn't consider my perspective" which is complete nonsense. Can we address this matter now? Are you comfortable in doing so? You've been running circles around it for hours now.

I will repeat myself to appease this basic, insignificant point: As an agnostic, I am comfortable is stating "I don't know if there is a god, creator, afterlife, etc. In doing so, I do not feel it's necessary to state I believe one way or the either, because I don't!" Fully comfortable, no anger nor frustration. Savvy?

#103 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll admit...sometimes a forum is difficult to converse when a variety of people are commenting all at once, then add in the delay of tying a response.
#102 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Pity you think so. I've addressed each of your points soundly. Even to a degree where you projected emotion in my responses.

Please consider Emile Durkheim and Max Weber's research of religion, spirituality, and belief. Acknowledge the difference between an educated guess and a baseless guess. And finally, please recognize the differences I have pointed out regarding faith in science and faith in religion/spirituality (specifically provided in #67).

Points made in #94, #89, and #84 are also all waiting for responses.

#104 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

-a baseless guess

Do you have faith in your spouse (or equivalent)?

Or do you have scientific evidence to back up what you believe about them?

If not, does that mean your faith in your spouse is, "baseless"?

Or is it based on your experience, rationals, emotional knowledge, and logic?

I agree with most of what you say about agnosticism... but have never really bought into this idea that faith is a word that means one thing in science and another in religion, although I've read much of the commentary that says it does.

For my BS in Psych, I had faith in the statistical methods we used in experimentation. For my BA in Counseling, I had faith in the mental and emotional techniques we used.

In science, I have faith in the integrity of the experimenters that went before us and their peers, and in the rationals and logics and theories used.

In religion, given enough study of the cultures, mores, writings, beliefs, character, integrity, and the study of the grammar of the languages involved, I have faith in the results I find.

I understand the argument that same word is different premised on what it is based, and I am sure that may be true based on the biases of the particular observer, but I still don't buy it in general.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

cool. I'll tell you what. Let me go back and reread the slate article. I also wanted to read Corky's link. I'll formulate a response and come back later.

btw...I'm not avoiding the issue. I thought I was illustrating my position in a few of the earlier posts. I can tell you the jist of my position, but again, I want to try and make an argument.

the jist is this, neither of us know with certainty what chemical compounds or processes exist at the core of the sun or the earth. There are certainly some plausible explanations. However, since nobody has drilled to the center of the earth or sun to observe and record anything, there is no "absolute certainty" as to what lies there.

Now, there may be some very reasonable theories,assumptions,etc... but the fact remains we "don't know". Much of science is built on silk threads. The volume of knowledge that "we know" could fit in a thimble as compared to the Universe of knowledge of which we can only guess.

Has science discovered much? yes! In comparison, how much is left which is unknown? INFINITE!!

Therefore, it it my assertion, that what is unknown will VASTLY AFFECT what "is known". In other words, what is "not currently known" will change the way we understand what we "think we know today" about the world and our surroundings once we discover what is not currently known.

confused? haha....that was hard to type.

therefore, to take a dogmatic position on a current day scientific hypothesis is to stand upon quicksand, because tomorrow's discovery could upend how we understand todays theory. To take a dogmatic position is to "believe" without know for certain, and to display faith in the people who assert the position. The fact is, for all i know?? The scientists observation is flawed, his math is faulty, his control was not controlled, his opinion is skewed.

a recent news article stated that some scientific journal just removed dozens of papers from its journal because the scientists lied. Teams of people conspired to decieve the public and other researchers.

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Do I believe that Pharmaceutical company researchers are working with my best interests in mind?

NEVER!

Are some researchers working with an agenda? Which ones? How do I tell? I'm not replicating their work in my home lab to verify thier findings and neither are you.

So, we have a choice...trust their published papers as truth??

No me friend.

#106 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, we have a choice...trust their published papers as truth??

No me friend.

#106 | Posted by DeadSpin

Ummm....ok.

Yet you would "trust" a bunch of published supernatural gibberish from near illiterates from thousands of years ago with absolutely no peer review. (Unless you consider ordering any text that disagrees banned and destroyed and ANYONE who disagrees burned at the stake a "peer review".)

#107 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Yet you would "trust" a bunch of published supernatural gibberish from near illiterates from thousands of years ago with absolutely no peer review."

Guess you did not read any of what he was saying.

He believes due to direct observation, while not necessarily something that can be passed to others it serves as prof as far as senses can be trusted. As opposed to taking some peoples word for it. It seems that is fair enough.

#108 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-16 06:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#107 Donnerboy

Before I was saved, the Bible was gibberish. The day God confronted and saved me, He had me go find an old Bible that I had in a box that had belonged to my grandmother which I had kept with some other family items.

I can't explain this....but I opened it and it was no longer gibberish. Everything I read was connected and I understood it. It was really amazing and still is.

So, to answer your comment about believing in 'supernatural gibberish from near illiterates', it wasn't a situation whereby I made a mental choice to read and accept as fact a book of gibberish. I did not intellectually ascribe to God or capitulate to a religious group.

One day I was going about life, was confronted by God, and was transformed in an instant. My views changed immediately without debating them within myself, and it opened a bible and comprehended deeply what was written.

My experience is beyond explanation, but I've explained as best as I can.

#109 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

#109

Saul (nee Paul) had a dramatic personal experience, too, and he mentioned it a couple of times to the churches he wrote.

But when he debated the philosophers on Mars Hill, he took a different tact than personal experience. He pointed out their unnamed god, and named him for them, giving them an argument instead.

#110 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jaynes 30 year old theories are interesting if not convincing.

For people who don't know about them, there is criticism enough to fill many threads.

There is also much agreement to many aspects of Jaynes theories.

May I offer a real world example of the bicameral brain from a neurologist's perspective?

Tell me it does not sound like a religious experience.

www.ted.com

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

My experience is beyond explanation, but I've explained as best as I can.
Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 06:30 PM

Once again, a doofus American Christian touting an emotional experience and badly trying to spin it as a intellectual experience.

#112 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-07-16 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

He believes due to direct observation, while not necessarily something that can be passed to others it serves as prof as far as senses can be trusted. As opposed to taking some peoples word for it. It seems that is fair enough.

#108 | Posted by salamandagator

No one has directly observed any God. Nor has anyone ever heard the voice of a God. So there has been no "direct observation". Only introspection.

Most honest theists will tell you it has always been a one sided conversation.

The rest are, well, not being honest.

#113 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I should have titled this thread: Does Revolution Explain E-ligious Beliefs.

#114 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-16 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

113
It must be nice to be everybody. Oh wait you are not you are just assuming that your hard line approach is the only possible valid one. A mind closed is a sad thing. Belief is highly personal and observations are as well. Just because you don't belive in something does not mean it is precluded from existence. This is why I understand agnostics but atheism is definite and is based on lack of observation and that just does not make sense.

#115 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-16 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, we have a choice...trust their published papers as truth??
No me friend.

#106 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Compared to the alternative (God of the Gaps), it's reasonably all we have. You're not suggesting you disavow all science do you? One instance of fraud is indicative of complete distrust? Are you too obtuse to notice that the peer review process is what rooted out the exact fraud that you speak up?

Hmmmmm. Too bad religion/spirituality/voices in our heads do not have the same filtering processes.

Science, like capitalism, is the best system we got. Perfect? No, but consider the alternatives: in comparison they haven't produced much.

#116 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is why I understand agnostics but atheism is definite and is based on lack of observation and that just does not make sense.

#115 | Posted by salamandagator

I am not an atheist.

Before I was saved, the Bible was gibberish.

So being "saved" scrambles your brain so well that now you can just overlook all the logical inconsistencies of the Bible.

Nice.

I'll pass.

You think you have found the ONLY way and the only truth?

Try getting in touch with your inner self someday and see how that goes for you. Learn to Meditate. Seek the four Noble Truths and find and follow the 8 fold Path to Enlightenment.

You might be surprised what you find.

You don't have to suspend all logic and reason to do so. In fact, it helps you see Reality for what it Really is and helps you achieve an inner peace that will fulfill that spirituality you obviously seek.

Plus....No Magic required.

enjoy!

#117 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not a theist,but I often wonder how existance is even possible and why would it be.Nothingness makes more sense,I'll wait until I die to find out I guess but the whole idea of matter and life makes no sense to me.Folks can believe what they want as long as they don't bother me but no one knows.I'd've had Abraham commited to an institution using my standards.

#118 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-07-16 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

My experience is beyond explanation, but I've explained as best as I can.
#109 | POSTED BY DEADSPIN

Just not to my standard, but that was my problem with the Catholic church in the first place, IMO. Too many round-about explanations and not enough objectivity. "It's god's plan for babies to suffer." All this talk about God's plan while simultaneously chastising women for getting abortions (murder?!) - completely antithetical reasoning. But who's keeping track, right?

All I'm looking for is a little consistency. Thankfully, for me, that is currently found in the scientific method. There's nothing new for me in religion, especially Catholicism. I've experienced it. Thought that certain feelings and emotions were "experiences with the Holy Spirit." Then I started reading about biology, then psychology, and eventually neurology.

The best way I can describe it is by borrowing a description: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking..." -- Albert Einstein (1912)

My experience brought freethinking and with it questions; the answers from people (leaders) in my church were unsatisfactory, IMO. More earthly explanations seemed more plausible. The principle of Ockham's Razor took hold of me for a long while. The suspension of disbelief was something I no longer wanted to engage in outside of a movie theatre.

#119 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-07-16 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

117.

The irony in that post well surpassed critical mass.

#120 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-16 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

-sound like

Talk about weak criteria, lmao.

#121 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-16 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#98 | Posted by Corky
"Greek myths good! Hebrew myths bad!"

For me, it's a case of "Greek myths myths, Hebrew myths myths."

#122 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-16 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

The irony in that post well surpassed critical mass.

#120 | Posted by salamandagator

Perhaps you don't realize that I have already examined Christianity and all the Major Religions of the world and found them extremely wanting.

#123 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-16 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok, so I read Corky's Jaynes article. Check this out;

Jaynes hypothesized that in the evolutionary past the left brain must have been completely separated from the right brain. The effect, according to Jaynes, would have been disquieting: language generated in the left brain would have been interpreted by the right brain as coming from outside or somewhere else. Ancient people, in other words, were functionally lobotomized and regularly experienced auditory hallucinations. These voices were called gods and this supposedly explains the origin of religion. For Jaynes, the bicameral mind lacked what he calls "consciousness."

which is followed by this statment:

With this hypothesis in hand Jaynes began scouring the historical record looking for evidence of bicamerality.

So the guy imagines a hypothesis out of this air, then "With this hypothesis in hand" then goes out "scouring the historical record looking for evidence of bicamerality".

cart before horse? wow. I imagine he found exactly what he was looking for. Oh wait, he did! In the Iliad!! hahaha

But wait, hold on a minute. He's going to use real science right? of course he is:

"But why is there such a mentality as a bicameral mind? Let us go back to the beginning of civilization in several sites in the Near East around 9000 B.C. It is concomitant with the beginning of agriculture. The reason the bicameral mind may have existed at this particular time is because of the evolutionary pressures for a new kind of social control to move from small hunter-gatherer groupings to large agriculture based towns or cities. The bicameral mentality could do this since it enabled a large group to carry around with them the directions of the chief or king as verbal hallucinations, instead of the chieftain having to be present at all times."

wait. what? does he have evidence of behavior in 9000 BC? From whom??

This guy jumps from conclusion to conclusion without ever leaving his leather professor's chair.

Here's a summation of his imaginary investigation;

"I think that verbal hallucinations had evolved along with the evolution of language during the Neanderthal era as aids to attention and perseverance in tasks, but then became the way of ruling larger groups."

I like how he used the term "I think" haha. at least he didn't say "I discovered in my interviews with Neanderthal's..."

This is a guy who is trying to explain something that he obviously 1) knows nothing about. 2) does not believe has taken place, 3) seems convinced that the people who have claimed to hear God's voice are mistaken (because to him there is no God) and 4) It's his responsibility to explain why people hear God speaking when obviously there is a neurological explanation.

but, but....what if? ....there is a God. This God speaks. and the intellectual academics just refuse to hear? Or, what if they actually hear this voice....but simply explain it away?

I like the guy's article though. He points out ths problem with Jaynes theory and the apparent one sidedness of Jaynes Society;

"This is stunning. It reads like a racist Victorian description of non-European subhumans, and if I didn't just pull it from a website advocating Jaynes' views, that's what I would think it was.

Here is how we know Jaynes is wrong: there is no evidence that historically recent hunter-gatherers were or are biologically-neurologically different or that their minds were metaphorically bifurcated. Nothing in the ethnohistoric or ethnographic record suggests this and in fact the opposite is true. What we find in the record is that these people, despite their different histories and cultures, were (and are) just like us."

great article....thanks Corky!

#124 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-16 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

going down a bit further from ruse's conclusions, it would seem to me then that if the conception of god indeed stems from adaptation and evolution, then the stronger belief, the,more likely the species who believes to propagate and carry on.

so if the measure of true belief would be "are ye willing to die for it" then i would conclude that muslims have the best chance of long term survival. most seem thoroughly convinced to either die for it or kill in the name of it.

the questions remains-- is the rest of society going to put up with it?

the answer? yes. unless, of course they adapt stronger beliefs than the muslims-- and are willing to die and or kill to propagate them. the current socialized state of people in the west answer that with a loud resounding "no!"

#125 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-07-16 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#124 | Posted by DeadSpin
"I discovered in my interviews with Neanderthal's..."

Now that I would read.

#126 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-16 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had to break my response into 2 posts**

As for the Salon article. I'll let Coyne's summation in which his boyish bromance with Dawkins raises it's head sum up the article:

"One can dispel the "science as faith" canard in a single paragraph, and I'll let Richard Dawkins have the honor:

There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation."

Coyne gets in the last jab...
"So the next time you hear someone described as a "person of faith," remember that although it's meant as praise, it's really an insult."

Ouch mister Coynes.

Here, Dawkins comments speak for Coynes' "belief" on the subject, so let me just address Dawkins.

Dawkins differentiates "feeling strongly, even passionately" between 2 possible scenarios.

1)(Science) "because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand"

or

2)(Faith) "...because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition"

Dawkins uses the word "internally" supposing that one's perceived interaction with God is in the mind. I'm sure Dawkins didn't infer internally to mean the kidney or spleen, but hey I don't want to put words in the genius' mouth. Dawkins goes further to reiterate his position by saying, "There's all the difference in the world between a belief that (1 - Science)one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and (2-Faith)a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation."

First, let me defend Dawkins. Yes, defend him. Dawkins has never been confronted by the Creator, brought to his knees in fear and trembling, and heard God speak to him audibly. Therefore, all he has to go on is various testimonies of people's experiences, and because of his critical thinking and logical reasoning skills, Dawkins is sure that there is a reasonable, logical, and probably medical explanation that excludes God. Dawkins makes clear his dismissal of "tradition, authority, or revelation" as evidence.

The truth is, if the entire population of the earth reported to Dawkins that they had encountered God and heard Him speak? If Dawkins didn't hear it himself, he would be sure there is a logical explanation that excludes God. So, it doesn't matter of there 10 reports or 10 thousand, a non-believer will exclude God from the equation.

Dawkins conclusion is a "belief" that he posits as a fact. It is Dawkins' opinion that he is right, ie. "There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it"

Do you see this?

#127 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-17 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dawkins is wrong, yet he asserts his opinion as a fact. He posits a conclusion which he has no evidence to support. He claims that there is a difference, when in fact there is not.

I have evidence of my absolute certainty in God's existence and the Bible's truth. I am, I admit, unable to provide that evidence to you or a court of peers for your examination, yet I have irrefutable evidence.

Now, I get that you don't believe me....I get that. I'm willing to be called names, insane, in need of help, insulted etc. That's ok. But I have the evidence I need and am comfortable going through life without group approval. But back to Dawkins.

Dawkins has made an error. Because he has not experienced an encounter with God for himself, he wrongly assumes that is evidence in itself that some other logical explanation exists, and as a result his definition of the word faith is split into 2 categories; one based on observation by Dawkins, and the other not observed by Dawkins. Of course, if Dawkins doesn't observe something for himself, then obviously it's a figment of the persons imagination explained to exclude God.

Faith in science, is reached by the same error made by Dawkins. The intelligent intellectual says to himself:

1)Science discovered vaccinations, vaccinations work, therefore science is right.

2) Because science is right about vaccinations, I can trust scientists that work for the Oil Companies, Big Pharm, Big Tobacco, Big AG-Monsanto etc....right?

3) Because science is right, I can trust my doctor or do I need a 2nd opinion?

4) What about those 30 year old science books I had in 5th grade?

5) Am I willing to take a dogmatic opinion on a theory that could change tomorrow? How many theories have been thrown out since this date last year?? 10 years ago?

6) How many times have I heard, "Back in the 80's and 90's, scientists believed.....but now know...."???

To have faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of which is not seen)in God is to believe in the person of God to be truthful, dependable, unchanging, and rock solid. If God says He will do something, you can take that to the bank as a rock solid promise that will take place.

To have faith in science, either the method or the knowledge obtained thus far, is to believe in 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with only 15 pieces in your hand. The amount of knowledge gained by man thus far is minute in comparison to all knowledge that exists. The undiscovered knowledge will have an impact and is a mathematical variable in the knowledge that is available today.

My faith is in the One who holds all knowledge, not in the cumulative limited knowledge gained thus far by man, and interpreted through faulty and limited intellect.

Faith is the same word whether it's used in relation to God or man. My faith is in a sure thing, not a leaking groaning plumbing system.

#128 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-17 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

123. So you found nothing so nothing can exist? But you say you are not atheist so what would that make you? You said that there cannot be a god who is personally observable so what sort of God could exist then? I mean no offense but it seems that these are contradictory. Especially when you bring up buddism as means to allow the definite disproving of any god?

#129 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-17 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort